Low-power CPUs will bridge the gap between current and future Intel chips.

We're still waiting on news of Intel's next-generation Haswell processors, but the current Ivy Bridge architecture isn't out of surprises just yet. CNET is reporting Intel will be talking about new 10-watt versions of its Ivy Bridge processors at CES. These chips will be slower than the current 17-watt models being used in most Ultrabooks, but they will enable thinner, more power-efficient devices and still be quite a bit faster than Intel's Atom processors or ARM-based chips. This isn't the first we've heard about more power-efficient Ivy Bridge CPUs, but it appears Intel is finally read to talk specifics.

As a case in point, take our recent Chromebook coverage: the 1.1GHz Sandy Bridge-based Intel Celeron in Acer's C7 Chromebook is much quicker than Samsung's 1.7GHz Exynos 5 Dual, a Cortex-A15-based chip that's the fastest ARM SoC shipping in devices today. This is all in spite of the fact that the Celeron is based on an older architecture and has a notable clock speed deficiency. ARM still has a power usage advantage, but these new Ivy Bridge CPUs should narrow that gap while keeping decent performance.

The new Ivy Bridge chips will be a better fit for Windows 8 tablets than the Ultrabook-class CPUs currently being used, but we'll still be waiting for Haswell (and newer Atoms) to really lower the power consumption level. For Haswell PCs, Intel will be recommending individual non-CPU system components to shave off the watts, and both it and the new Atoms will support new "active idle" power states. That will allow the systems to enter and exit sleep mode extremely quickly. They'll also come as systems on chips (SoCs), further reducing power consumption and reducing the number of chips OEMs will be required to fit on their motherboards. The new 10W processors will be a good bridge between Haswell (currently due out at some point in the middle of 2013) and current chips, but it remains to be seen whether they'll enable PCs that are wildly different from the ones we've seen already.

10 watts is not "Tablet ready" in the minds of customers yet. ARM tablets can easily take 5 times less power and have the resulting better battery life.

The wildcards: - Will demand for Windows 8 Pro tablets drive 10w tablets to significant sales? - How much power does the ARM A15 take? It's supposed to be much more than the A9, maybe it makes 10w look less bad?

However for an HTPC this could be great - transcoding 1080p on a 10w system...

This would be an awesome HTPC starting point. Fanless 10w chip, HDMI out, 1080p decoding, AND runs linux/windows off a small SSD or flash drive...count me in. It could be what the appleTV should have been, a full and customizable computer the size and power profile of a set top box.

Surface Pro is already shipping with the older ultrabook class i5. The Surface Pro won't get this chip until 3rd gen at earliest, maybe 2015.

Someone at MS should be fired if this comes to pass.

I suspect MS will skip this chip and go straight to Haswell next year in Surface Pro v2.

Start by firing the entire executive staff and working downwards. Maybe after all the managers have been fired, you can get rid of some other dead weight(you know the lifers who aren't doing any work).

Surface Pro is already shipping with the older ultrabook class i5. The Surface Pro won't get this chip until 3rd gen at earliest, maybe 2015.

Any reason why you think it will take Microsoft two full years to implement a chip that is due "very soon" according to Intel? I would expect a twelve month development time frame tops. Shorter if the chip can easily be substituted for existing Ivy Bridge solutions - which I don't see why it wouldn't be.

10 watts is not "Tablet ready" in the minds of customers yet. ARM tablets can easily take 5 times less power and have the resulting better battery life.

The wildcards: - Will demand for Windows 8 Pro tablets drive 10w tablets to significant sales? - How much power does the ARM A15 take? It's supposed to be much more than the A9, maybe it makes 10w look less bad?

However for an HTPC this could be great - transcoding 1080p on a 10w system...

I can't find any information on power draw for the various ARM SoC out there.

how does the built in video 3D rendering on these low power ivy bridges compare to the 3D performance of the ARM SoC's? I know for desktop/laptop side intel's 3D performance is lack luster. Just wondering how it translates to the tablet market.

Technically, Haswell looks very promising. The question is, do we need/want desktop like performance from a tablet and is it worth the premium? The thought of 10 years of OS support certainly adds value but can also be had from an Atom based model like the Iconia W510 which should meet most Windows tablet users needs.

I'm afraid the public will respond to Haswell tablets the same way they have to $1000+ Ultrabooks. It's odd to see a Wintel trying to break into a saturated market and ignoring the budget sector. It's what propelled Android and the Japanese auto industry and others from obscurity to prominence. It certainly makes for an interesting case study.

Technically, Haswell looks very promising. The question is, do we need/want desktop like performance from a tablet and is it worth the premium? The thought of 10 years of OS support certainly adds value but can also be had from an Atom based model like the Iconia W510 which should meet most Windows tablet users needs.

I'm afraid the public will respond to Haswell tablets the same way they have to $1000+ Ultrabooks. It's odd to see a Wintel trying to break into a saturated market and ignoring the budget sector. It's what propelled Android and the Japanese auto industry and others from obscurity to prominence. It certainly makes for an interesting case study.

how does the built in video 3D rendering on these low power ivy bridges compare to the 3D performance of the ARM SoC's? I know for desktop/laptop side intel's 3D performance is lack luster. Just wondering how it translates to the tablet market.

The Intel graphics are actually significantly faster than the PowerVR graphics currently in use on the ARM and low power Atom chips. Faster than Tegra 3 as well.

10 watts is not "Tablet ready" in the minds of customers yet. ARM tablets can easily take 5 times less power and have the resulting better battery life.

The wildcards: - Will demand for Windows 8 Pro tablets drive 10w tablets to significant sales? - How much power does the ARM A15 take? It's supposed to be much more than the A9, maybe it makes 10w look less bad?

However for an HTPC this could be great - transcoding 1080p on a 10w system...

I can't find any information on power draw for the various ARM SoC out there.

Man, it is tough to find information on power draw of the ARM SoC's. I found these two PDF's which has some information on them. Not sure how helpful though.

This one suggests that the A9 is 0.25w per core and the A15 is possibly 0.35w per core? If I'm reading it correctly:

It would be awesome if this allowed the market to produce a full version Windows 8 tablet with 5 hours of battery life for ~$600.

The Iconia W510 is an impressive piece of kit and meets your specifications. Best review I've found so far on it, is http://semiaccurate.com/2012/12/18/acer ... ng-a-look/ it includes a side by side comparison with the Surface RT including power and performance stats. It's pretty much made Win RT obsolete.

10 watts is not "Tablet ready" in the minds of customers yet. ARM tablets can easily take 5 times less power and have the resulting better battery life.

The wildcards: - Will demand for Windows 8 Pro tablets drive 10w tablets to significant sales? - How much power does the ARM A15 take? It's supposed to be much more than the A9, maybe it makes 10w look less bad?

However for an HTPC this could be great - transcoding 1080p on a 10w system...

I can't find any information on power draw for the various ARM SoC out there.

Man, it is tough to find information on power draw of the ARM SoC's. I found these two PDF's which has some information on them. Not sure how helpful though.

This one suggests that the A9 is 0.25w per core and the A15 is possibly 0.35w per core? If I'm reading it correctly:

10 watts is not "Tablet ready" in the minds of customers yet. ARM tablets can easily take 5 times less power and have the resulting better battery life.

The wildcards: - Will demand for Windows 8 Pro tablets drive 10w tablets to significant sales? - How much power does the ARM A15 take? It's supposed to be much more than the A9, maybe it makes 10w look less bad?

However for an HTPC this could be great - transcoding 1080p on a 10w system...

I can't find any information on power draw for the various ARM SoC out there.

Man, it is tough to find information on power draw of the ARM SoC's. I found these two PDF's which has some information on them. Not sure how helpful though.

This one suggests that the A9 is 0.25w per core and the A15 is possibly 0.35w per core? If I'm reading it correctly:

No, I think the Intel is 10W total, not per core. To ammend my previous post with the Arm information I found: I read further into one of the PDF's and it looks like a Cortex-A9 Dual core running at 2Ghz (top speed) is a total output of 1.9W. So a quad core A9 I assume would be double that, 3.8W total. That is also running at top speed of 2Ghz, which most implementations in phones/tablets don't run at.

I can only assume the A15 would be maybe slightly higher than an A9. Seeing that it has a lot more features and can run at higher clock speeds but is on a much smaller die process.

I'm not sure what there is to be amazed about here.If it uses 17 watts / hour running at X speed ... then it's just a given it'll use less watts / hour when they underclock it.It's not like you're getting the same speed for less watts/hr ... THAT would be amazing.Am I missing something here?

Yes. It's not always practical to scale down power by reducing clock speed, there are other factors.

Technically, Haswell looks very promising. The question is, do we need/want desktop like performance from a tablet and is it worth the premium? The thought of 10 years of OS support certainly adds value but can also be had from an Atom based model like the Iconia W510 which should meet most Windows tablet users needs.

I'm afraid the public will respond to Haswell tablets the same way they have to $1000+ Ultrabooks. It's odd to see a Wintel trying to break into a saturated market and ignoring the budget sector. It's what propelled Android and the Japanese auto industry and others from obscurity to prominence. It certainly makes for an interesting case study.

It doesn't help either that some people may want to wait for these new features in Haswell to be refined in Broadwell or even the second gen iteration in Skylake/Skymont, if Intel's now embarking on making the traditional PC motherboard an SoC. I could be wrong, but that sounds like a radical (but necessary) departure in motherboard design that's likely to hit several snags during the evolutionary process. I do hope Intel can pull it off (it would be nice to have desktop class performance in a tablet factor), especially as they do technically have the best and most advanced fabs available. They're just stuck in the wrong market segment right now to properly leverage that power.

If it uses 17 watts / hour running at X speed ... then it's just a given it'll use less watts / hour when they underclock it.

It's not like you're getting the same speed for less watts/hr ... THAT would be amazing.

Am I missing something here?

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that exactly what die shrinks are supposed to accomplish? Not that what Intel's doing is a shrink (It's still Ivy Bridge, after all), but isn't a die shrink usually the path to getting the same power from less energy?

The conclusion is clear: x86 does not carry a giant performance penalty, like everyone seems to think, nor does ARM have magic pixie dust. Atom, whose core design is from 2008, manages to hold up well against nVidia's 2012 Tegra 3. Both are on last-gen processes - 32nm for Intel and 40nm for nVidia.

ULV Ivy Bridge is already far ahead of Atom in perf/watt and Haswell should finally decrease idle power to Atom and ARM levels. Intel has some very good chips - let us not swallow all of ARM's marketing bullshit just because Intel is the "big bad corporation".

ARM has a decent design in the form of Cortex-A15, but as Chromebook reviews have shown, performance is still well behind Sandy Bridge and power consumption is very high relative to ARM's past offerings.

Andrew Cunningham / Andrew has a B.A. in Classics from Kenyon College and has over five years of experience in IT. His work has appeared on Charge Shot!!! and AnandTech, and he records a weekly book podcast called Overdue.